"This is a Catholic country". Your foetus is more important than your life.

[Eva_Luna]

@Anaamika

But it 's (mostly) not government sponsored. They don’t hear “This is a Hindu country”. It’s due to the ignorance of the populace and ignorance can be changed. Willful ignorance will not be changed.

In fact, sex selection abortion is illegal in India.

[ruadh]

@Cinnamon_Imp

I think in the past Ireland has prevented pregnant women from travelling abroad when it was suspected they were off to get an abortion elsewhere.

There’s a constitutional right to travel for abortion, adopted by referendum after the X case in 1992. For a while there was some question as to whether this applied generally or only in cases where an abortion would be legal in Ireland - in fact the Supreme Court still hasn’t clarified this - but a lower court decision five years ago, which was not appealed, stated that it was a general right and I don’t think there’s anyone who seriously doubts that at this point.

[ruadh]

@Monty

Just curious, what legal effect does the Declaration of Geneva happen to have in Ireland, or anywhere else for that matter?

None.

[Monty]

In that case, then, it’s merely meaningless babble. I’m sorry to put it that way, but the fact is that professional ethics are governed by the professional association with authority granted or recognized by law and, that’s right, the actual laws applying to that profession. Yes, I think it would be wonderful if the laws everywhere recognized the Declaration of Geneva. Sadly, they don’t.

The law in Ireland seems to on one hand support the woman’s right to have a life-saving procedure, one which is supported even by most “anti-abortion”/“pro-lifer” groups, and on the other hand to penalize the medical professionals if they perform that procedure. Hopefully, something good will come out of this very sad, and absolutely unnecessary, death. Hopefully, the Oireachtas will get off their collective duffs and actually enact legislation to protect both patients and their doctors. Hopefully, the Oireachtas will get off their collective duffs and actually honor their constitution.

I know this isn’t rigorous; however, the Wiki page on the demographics of the Republic of Ireland show that approximately 85% of the population is Roman Catholic. So, according to the folks concerned in this case, approximately 15% of the population have to just grin and bear it? Those 15% (not to mention some of the majority 85%) has to grin and bear it while their government piddles on Articles 40(1), 40(3)(3[sup]o[/sup]), and most especially Article 44 (which I will quote in its entirety below) of the very constitution which gives them the authority they have in the first place?

Article 44:

1.       1[sup]o[/sup]   The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.
   

2.      1[sup]o[/sup]   Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.
   
          2[sup]o[/sup]   The State guarantees not to endow any religion.
   
          3[sup]o[/sup]   The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
   
          4[sup]o[/sup]   Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school.
   
          5[sup]o[/sup]   Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property, movable and immovable, and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes.
   
          6[sup]o[/sup]   The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.
   

To correct those morons mentioned in the OP, Ireland used to be a country with a Roman Catholic government and a Roman Catholic majority. Now it’s a country with a Roman Catholic majority and a country with a constitution that says it derives its authority from the Holy Trinity but doesn’t say it’s a fucking Catholic country or fucking Catholic government!"

Sorry about the colorful language above, but I think the issue merits a bit of, shall we say, intense emphasis.

Another thing: That bit about providing information is the lamest cop out I’ve ever seen in my life. What about people who simply cannot travel due to the medical issue at hand? Telling them, “Well, we can’t do that for you here, but here’s a nifty flyer about how it’d be hunkey-dorey for you just one country over” is the rudest slap in the face in the history of humanity.

[Monty]

Article 44(1) above should not have the 1[sup]o[/sup] after it. Missed it on proofing.

[ruadh]

@Monty

The law in Ireland seems to on one hand support the woman’s right to have a life-saving procedure, one which is supported even by most “anti-abortion”/“pro-lifer” groups

I would dispute that they actually do support it. Most of them insist that abortion is never necessary to save a woman’s life. There’s a bit of linguistic sleight of hand here, as they claim that if the purpose is to save the woman’s life then it isn’t an “abortion”, but then they also claim that any such procedure, to be acceptable, must do everything possible to preserve the life of the foetus. So in a situation where there really was no way to save the woman’s life but to intentionally destroy the foetus, they would side with the foetus.

At least one anti-abortion group, the Society for the Prevention of Unborn Children, has openly stated that it would have been “unethical” for doctors to accede to Savita’s request. Most of the others are hemming and hawing about the whole thing and saying “wait for the inquest”.

[Monty]

@ruadh

they claim that if the purpose is to save the woman’s life then it isn’t an “abortion”

Cite that this is the actual stance by most anti-abortion/pro-life groups, please.

[clairobscur]

@Steve_MB

It seems that there is also some dithering on the part of the EU, which apparently has failed to punish Ireland sufficiently to bring it into compliance with the law.

Sorry to nitpick when you’re discussing such a serious topic, but it’s a pet peeve of mine : the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. It’s related to a completely different organization, the Council of Europe, which was created much earlier than the EU and includes many non EU countries, like Russia or Turkey.

[clairobscur]

@Cat_Whisperer

I was trying to write a post sympathizing with the doctors, about how they had to choose their careers or this woman’s life, and then I realized that that shouldn’t have been a choice for them at all - how do you put your career over someone’s life? Especially as a doctor who is supposed to be all about helping people.

Call me a cynic, but I’m pretty sure that the majority of doctors would rather lose a patient than lose their license if those were the only options.

[clairobscur]

@Monty

Cite that this is the actual stance by most anti-abortion/pro-life groups, please.

The actual stance is probably that if the death of the foetus is a secondary consequence of an action intended to save the mother’s life it’s not an abortion.

I’m assuming that because it’s the stance of the RCC.

For instance, in the Dominican case mentioned previously, the RCC would have been OK with the mother receiving an appropriate treatment, because the death of the foetus was an unfortunate consequence of an action required to save the mother (although I’m sure there would have been arguments about whether receiving the treatment at this point was strictly necessary to save her).

[Monty]

@clairobscur

The actual stance is probably that if the death of the foetus is a secondary consequence of an action intended to save the mother’s life it’s not an abortion.

I’m assuming that because it’s the stance of the RCC.

For instance, in the Dominican case mentioned previously, the RCC would have been OK with the mother receiving an appropriate treatment, because the death of the foetus was an unfortunate consequence of an action required to save the mother (although I’m sure there would have been arguments about whether receiving the treatment at this point was strictly necessary to save her).

That ain’t what ruadh said.

[Cat_Whisperer]

@clairobscur

Call me a cynic, but I’m pretty sure that the majority of doctors would rather lose a patient than lose their license if those were the only options.

That’s entirely possible. Add in the chances of going to jail, and you’ve reduced the pool of doctor who would do the right thing even further.

[Guinastasia]

@Ludovic

Why isn’t anyone taking exception to Der Trihs’ statements? I swear liberals always get a pass around here.

Some of us have pretty much given up. He’s become too much of a caricature.

[ruadh]

@Monty

That ain’t what ruadh said.

Um, yes it is.

[Monty]

You claimed that if the procedure was to save the woman’s life, it’s not an abortion according to the pro-life groups. The explantion another poster provided is not what you said. There may be situations where a different procedure will also cause an abortion, but an abortion itself, the procedure of abortion itself, can be to save a woman’s life. That does not all of a sudden make that no longer an abortion.

Edited out the cursing I feel you so richly deserve for your bullshit.

[Monty]

To be even more clear, in my posting above, I mean that a different procedure done to save the life of the woman may have as a possible consequence the termination of her pregnancy. An abortion specifically done as an abortion to save the life of the woman is not suddenly not an abortion. It’s still an abortion.

[Monty]

Strike this. Heat of the moment. Shan’t happen again.

@Monty

Edited out the cursing I feel you so richly deserve for your bullshit.

[pikey_pete]

the funny thing is that the closest to abortion that the Bible comes is causing a woman to miscarry…which is treated like a property crime. Also, in several places, the Bible expresses that children less than one month old are property as well, not people. I don’t mind if people are anti-abortion, I just wish they would quit dressing their arguments up in holy vestments.

[Guinastasia]

@Monty

You claimed that if the procedure was to save the woman’s life, it’s not an abortion according to the pro-life groups. The explantion another poster provided is not what you said. There may be situations where a different procedure will also cause an abortion, but an abortion itself, the procedure of abortion itself, can be to save a woman’s life. That does not all of a sudden make that no longer an abortion.

Edited out the cursing I feel you so richly deserve for your bullshit.

That’s how the Catholic Church views it. Maybe not all pro-life groups, but the Church does not define it as an “abortioin”. A weasle word, I know.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0910/1224323797477.html

AN INTERNATIONAL symposium on maternal healthcare in Dublin at the weekend has concluded that abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother.

Oh, and it gets better: in the wake of this incident, they’re doubling down on that stance!

I mean, let’s be perfectly clear here. This was a case where a miscarried but still living fetus was poisoning the mother. There was no feasible way to save her life without an abortion. None. Nada. Zip. Just doesn’t exist. And these people are still going to say that it’s never necessary?

…

Makes me want to pull a Kinthalis.